What is street photography? [Discussion thread only]

[Camping]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi All,

 

Just ran into this forum...

 

Cannot understand this street photography discussion by all these Leica people...

 

As far as I know the Leica was made for street photography and HCB is our GOD.

 

He basically defined the art and the moment!

 

Great Street Forum and image links to some of the member's sites.

 

Paul

[Guest Streetographer]

The street photography forum is the reason I joined.

[surfer dude]

So, just to be absolutely sure - if it has people in it, does it still qualify as a "street" photograph?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's OK. Couldn't help myself. Just kidding.

[erl]

[roguewave]

It is so difficult to get consensus on this and unless some Rules are applied specifically stating whats allowed, then it's open to interpretation by any individual and your views are as invalid as another. The only other solution, avoiding Rules is to allow the photographer to decide where it sits and for no Moderator to move it along, unless it blatantly has nothing to do with a street.

 

Then what's the definition of the street ? Is it open air street and not a shopping arcade, or an exhibition hall ? Is it a location thing, or a shooting approach ? If its inside a barbers shop is it not street ?

 

I've been working on an extended series of 'street portraits'. I had no contact with the subjects before the moments before the camera was focussed. They are not 'candid' for sure, but are street, see here: Flickr: Rolo .'s Photostream They are portraits and definitely people, but they are street portraits and I may choose to reinforce the street element. I won't be posting them here, but I'd suggest that there are rules, or no rules and not repeated interpretations that take us nowhere.

 

I'm totally in favour of the photographer deciding it to be placed in the Street Photography Section, if that's what he wants. We campaigned a long time for this section and I'm delighted it's arrived. I'm dismayed, a little, that others are still trying to define what 'street' is.

 

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

I don't like that others want to DEFINE things for us, as if they are the repository of wisdom. The Street is the street, wide open to everyone for whatever is their propose, photographically. In fact the less obvious the intention and the more ambiguous the scene, the more interested I become.

[erl]

I too like the looseness of the 'agreement'.

 

OTOH, there are those, usually the ones asking 'what is', that I suspect are looking for some guidance on this topic especially. I see no harm in making 'suggestions' as to what makes 'street photography'. As for rigidly defining it, no.

[vdb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As we are in this discussion I would like to suggest an example of an image I posted in this street forum http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/254892-indiana.html

 

Now, this was taken on the street, clearly. Was unposed, clearly. Shows daily life, a man in full stride, smoking and engaged with his surroundings. A tight frame for sure, But in my mind pure street. The moderators chose to move this to the people forum. Not that it matters much to me. But a bit confused I must say.

 

Certainly not of the traditional HCB style, but certainly within the realm of street. Model, Gilden, Mark Chen come to mind as similar styles.

 

So, for the purpose of discussion, what do others think? Is this not street?

 

And for the record, I have great respect for the members of this forum and certainly our fine moderators. I have no qualms here. Just curious as to why this was considered "not street".

[likalar]

Very nice street shot, and about as street as a shot can be, IMO. I don't see the point of moving it, as it's likely to not really matter which category it sits within. Your initial destination should be respected, again, IMO.

 

Larry

[erl]

Virgil, I can only agree. It is a street shot. Why it was apparently moved from 'Street' is beyond me. My only issue with that image is the obvious flash effect, but that is purely a comment on my taste.

[vdb]

Erl, I understand. But flash adds to the energy I wanted. Technique only. Could not have been more candid. Trust me. He didn't see me until after.

[Nando]

Personally, I feel that street photography is not a good name for this genre of photography. My opinion is that street photography is the photography of flâneurie. There are flâneurs who are writers, poets, painters, comedians, etc. The street photographer is a flâneur with a camera.

 

The flâneur partakes in the attuned observation of life and human interactions before him or her. It just happens that in an urban setting, such observation (and photographs) will happen primarily in public on the streets; hence the name street photography. Unfortunately "street photography" is tied up because of linguistics. The term "street photographer" before Winogrand popularized it, denoted a photographer who worked on the streets offering to take photos/portraits in exchange for money. I don't think that there was a term to denote photography in the style of HC-B, Kertesz, Walker Evans, etc. prior to Winogrand and his contemporaries coining the phrase. Robert Capa told Henri Cartier-Bresson to call himself a photojournalist so that he would be taken seriously. "Surrealist photographer" wouldn't get any respect or work.

 

In my opinion, street photography is not regulated to the streets of a metropolis. For example in England, some of the most influential "street photography" (by Martin Parr - love him or hate him) occurred on the beach. James Ravilious photographed in a rural village in North Devon. One should note that Henri Cartier-Bresson shot many photographs in rural settings and indoors. He shot portraits and also landscapes. One thing that carried through in all his photographs, besides the impecable geometry, is the human element. His landscapes, even those without people present in the frame, clearly shows the hand of man. Always. All his photographs are the observations of a flâneur.

 

Street photography is different that documentary photography. Documentary photography is primarily illustration and, ideally, is unbiased. It is meant for reportage. Street photography is not bound by reportage. A street photograph can but does not necessarily document or report. It can instead be a joke, a political statement, it can direct the viewer to look at some strange-looking person that was walking down the street, or it simply can be an aesthetically pleasing composition without any raison d'etre besides being beautiful; it can have any raison d'etre.The flâneur-photographer is detached but not necessarily unbiased.

[erl]

Erl, I understand. But flash adds to the energy I wanted. Technique only. Could not have been more candid. Trust me. He didn't see me until after.

Totally accepted Virgil. Just differences in technique. Neither right nor wrong.

[andybarton]

I don't know who moved it, but it's like saying that Gilden's work isn't "street".

 

I'm happy to move it back, Virgil.

[erl]

Personally, I feel that street photography is not a good name for this genre of photography. My opinion is that street photography is the photography of flâneurie. There are flâneurs who are writers, poets, painters, comedians, etc. The street photographer is a flâneur with a camera.

Quite so, but the term 'Street photography®' is a little more specific and therefore currently useful in our context here, "if" we need titles at all.

 

 

The flâneur partakes in the attuned observation of life and human interactions before him or her. It just happens that in an urban setting, such observation (and photographs) will happen primarily in public on the streets; hence the name street photography. Unfortunately "street photography" is tied up because of linguistics. The term "street photographer" before Winogrand popularized it, denoted a photographer who worked on the streets offering to take photos/portraits in exchange for money. I don't think that there was a term to denote photography in the style of HC-B, Kertesz, Walker Evans, etc. prior to Winogrand and his contemporaries coining the phrase. Robert Capa told Henri Cartier-Bresson to call himself a photojournalist so that he would be taken seriously. "Surrealist photographer" wouldn't get any respect or work.

My understanding is that HCB didn't need the work. He was independently wealthy.

 

In my opinion, street photography is not regulated to the streets of a metropolis. For example in England, some of the most influential "street photography" (by Martin Parr - love him or hate him) occurred on the beach. James Ravilious photographed in a rural village in North Devon. One should note that Henri Cartier-Bresson shot many photographs in rural settings and indoors. He shot portraits and also landscapes. One thing that carried through in all his photographs, besides the impecable geometry, is the human element. His landscapes, even those without people present in the frame, clearly shows the hand of man. Always. All his photographs are the observations of a flâneur.

Probably good evidence to NOT use 'titles', as we tend to here!

 

Street photography is different that documentary photography. Documentary photography is primarily illustration and, ideally, is unbiased. It is meant for reportage. Street photography is not bound by reportage. A street photograph can but does not necessarily document or report. It can instead be a joke, a political statement, it can direct the viewer to look at some strange-looking person that was walking down the street, or it simply can be an aesthetically pleasing composition without any raison d'etre besides being beautiful; it can have any raison d'etre.The flâneur-photographer is detached but not necessarily unbiased.

Largely, I agree, but the bias that necessarily comes with photography, no matter how minute or extreme, has to be present in reportage and documentary work as well. It is the knowledge of the photographer understanding the type of bias his equipment brings that allows him(her) to up-play the intrinsic 'truth' of the subject they are targeting.

 

Actually, it seems we are furious agreeing.

[vdb]

Andy,Erl

Appreciate that but I just use this as an example for discussion. I think that to attempt to define street these days is difficult. Look at instagram. Everyone with iPhone is a street photographer. It's an organic evolving thing. I think it was a good idea to add this forum. It will likely become the most popular photo forum. Interest is high. And it has become accessible. With an iPhone it is quite easy to be invisible. But styles vary quite severely. And we will see, I predict, quite an evolution here. As an international forum we will all look forward to visiting the streets across the globe.

 

I will add that I personally do not feel that posed portraits are not street. It's the end product. Winogrand posed many of his subjects. But the end product did not appear so.

 

Street is full of rule breakers. Thank goodness for that

[Guest Holy Moly]

As we are in this discussion I would like to suggest an example of an image I posted in this street forum http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/254892-indiana.html

 

Now, this was taken on the street, clearly. Was unposed, clearly. Shows daily life, a man in full stride, smoking and engaged with his surroundings. A tight frame for sure, But in my mind pure street. The moderators chose to move this to the people forum. Not that it matters much to me. But a bit confused I must say.

 

Certainly not of the traditional HCB style, but certainly within the realm of street. Model, Gilden, Mark Chen come to mind as similar styles.

 

So, for the purpose of discussion, what do others think? Is this not street?

 

And for the record, I have great respect for the members of this forum and certainly our fine moderators. I have no qualms here. Just curious as to why this was considered "not street".

 

Sorry, but the move is right. Why?

 

To be a 'street-photograph' there is something missing. It's the small, one glance 'story' which let's us smile or react in another way. Photographing people outside without this 'hook' ends in portraits or documentary pictures but not in 'streetphotography' in it's pure meaning.

 

When we look at HCBs portfolio, a lot of his photographs are documentary shots and some are pure street.

 

Example:

 

The pic of the jumping man over/into the water puddle behind a railwaystation is (in my eyes) 'street' but the pic of the family at the banks of a canal or river having a picnic is 'people' or social/documentary photography.

 

Here are two examples for pure street (in my opinion) and a straight portrait which should be put into the people's photo section and not into street:

 

Street:

 

Sleepy Hollow | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

people:

 

Cigarettje | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

The borderline between people - social- and street photography isn't easy to follow but one thing for me is clear:

At the end of a day outside we get more good portraits than a real, pure streetshot.......

[likalar]

This is all pretty funny. I suggest simple respect for the member that posts an image on either photo forum. If Billy puts his candid portrait that was shot on a street into either forum (street or people), there is no real problem with either choice. It's quite subjective, so just respect his choice, and enjoy the view. Most likely members will check out both categories, so the net result is the same: Billy's shot gets some views, he maybe gets some feedback, and life moves forward. Somewhat.

 

Larry

[roguewave]

This is all pretty funny. I suggest simple respect for the member that posts an image on either photo forum. If Billy puts his candid portrait that was shot on a street into either forum (street or people), there is no real problem with either choice. It's quite subjective, so just respect his choice, and enjoy the view. Most likely members will check out both categories, so the net result is the same: Billy's shot gets some views, he maybe gets some feedback, and life moves forward. Somewhat.

 

Larry

 

Our esteemed colleague makes things crystal clear, although it's usually done in a photograph. All this fuss for nothing. Let the artist make the choice, not the moderators. All this commotion in an attempted to put templates on like blinders. Let those that want to express themselves with images do so, on the merits and not bureaucracy.

[Frank Sellitto]

Personally, I feel that street photography is not a good name for this genre of photography. My opinion is that street photography is the photography of flâneurie. There are flâneurs who are writers, poets, painters, comedians, etc. The street photographer is a flâneur with a camera.

 

The flâneur partakes in the attuned observation of life and human interactions before him or her. It just happens that in an urban setting, such observation (and photographs) will happen primarily in public on the streets; hence the name street photography. Unfortunately "street photography" is tied up because of linguistics. The term "street photographer" before Winogrand popularized it, denoted a photographer who worked on the streets offering to take photos/portraits in exchange for money. I don't think that there was a term to denote photography in the style of HC-B, Kertesz, Walker Evans, etc. prior to Winogrand and his contemporaries coining the phrase. Robert Capa told Henri Cartier-Bresson to call himself a photojournalist so that he would be taken seriously. "Surrealist photographer" wouldn't get any respect or work.

 

 

In my opinion, street photography is not regulated to the streets of a metropolis. For example in England, some of the most influential "street photography" (by Martin Parr - love him or hate him) occurred on the beach. James Ravilious photographed in a rural village in North Devon. One should note that Henri Cartier-Bresson shot many photographs in rural settings and indoors. He shot portraits and also landscapes. One thing that carried through in all his photographs, besides the impecable geometry, is the human element. His landscapes, even those without people present in the frame, clearly shows the hand of man. Always. All his photographs are the observations of a flâneur.

 

Street photography is different that documentary photography. Documentary photography is primarily illustration and, ideally, is unbiased. It is meant for reportage. Street photography is not bound by reportage. A street photograph can but does not necessarily document or report. It can instead be a joke, a political statement, it can direct the viewer to look at some strange-looking person that was walking down the street, or it simply can be an aesthetically pleasing composition without any raison d'etre besides being beautiful; it can have any raison d'etre.The flâneur-photographer is detached but not necessarily unbiased.

 

Virgil,

 

I see it as Nando does. In general I believe in this particular Credo when it comes to capsulating what street photography is. Is your example street? For me less so and maybe because it comes on the heels of your previous work in which the surroundings are less defined than not. Thi is IMHO and a purely subjective POV. It matters little to me where I view the work and I also can non-relate to having someone else decide where else it should be placed and that being problematic in itself. This happened to me as well and resented being second-guessed.

 

Frank

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear